entity_get

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description's 'Get' wording is consistent with those. The description adds only that aliases are included in the result, but does not disclose anything else about behavior such as error cases or scope resolution.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with no filler, and the primary action is front-loaded. It is concise but sacrifices enough parameter detail that it is not maximally useful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given four parameters, no schema descriptions, and many similar sibling tools, the description is too terse to give an agent enough context for correct invocation. It does not explain the meaning of 'selected scope', the optional parameters, or how this tool relates to entity_search and memory_get.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the role of 'id', 'project', 'namespace', or 'include_deleted'. 'Selected scope' is the only vague nod to project/namespace parameters, but it does not map clearly to the actual parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the action ('Get') and the resource ('entity and aliases') and references a 'selected scope', which makes the basic purpose clear. It is less explicit about whether this is a direct ID lookup versus a search, but the required 'id' parameter helps distinguish it from tools like entity_search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not say when to prefer entity_get over sibling tools such as entity_search, memory_get, or entity_link. It also does not explain what 'selected scope' means in terms of project/namespace usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.